Thats definitely true, when I bought my Athlon 1.33GHz there were motherboards out with DDR. I saved money by recycling my old PC133 SDRAM.
What I should say is it was later on in the life of the original Athlons that they were introduced. There was no DDR motherboards available when I got my Athlon 700. Original Athlon + DDR with same cache is marginally below the Athlon XP in performance with same clock speed, cache and DDR.
No, the Athlon XP only performs marginally faster than the original Athlons, since basically the only addition is SSE. The Athlon XP 1600+ (at 1.4GHz) performed on par with the Athlon 1.4GHz. However, you should not that the original Athlons were up against PIIIs and were targeted as such. The new performance rating was to help boost the marketability of the Athlon against he PIVs which were clocking at very high speeds, but with marginally better or lower performance than the lower clocked Athlons. However, it should be noted that during the time the Athlon XPs were introduced, so was DDR memory, which helped with the bandwidth issues. That said, its possible that Athlon XP 3000+ 512KB cache and 333MHz DDR > Athlon 3000MHz 256KB cache and 133MHz SDRAM. But, the same would definitely not be said if you used 333MHz DDR with the 3000MHz Athlon I bet.
Well according to most nerds at least. Doesn't everyone love to debug their software for hourse to find a missing semi-colon?
Okay, so maybe the government can keep tabs on you and you are bombarded with tons of spam in your email box, but still?
Slashdot Mirror
Thats definitely true, when I bought my Athlon 1.33GHz there were motherboards out with DDR. I saved money by recycling my old PC133 SDRAM. What I should say is it was later on in the life of the original Athlons that they were introduced. There was no DDR motherboards available when I got my Athlon 700. Original Athlon + DDR with same cache is marginally below the Athlon XP in performance with same clock speed, cache and DDR.
No, the Athlon XP only performs marginally faster than the original Athlons, since basically the only addition is SSE. The Athlon XP 1600+ (at 1.4GHz) performed on par with the Athlon 1.4GHz. However, you should not that the original Athlons were up against PIIIs and were targeted as such. The new performance rating was to help boost the marketability of the Athlon against he PIVs which were clocking at very high speeds, but with marginally better or lower performance than the lower clocked Athlons. However, it should be noted that during the time the Athlon XPs were introduced, so was DDR memory, which helped with the bandwidth issues. That said, its possible that Athlon XP 3000+ 512KB cache and 333MHz DDR > Athlon 3000MHz 256KB cache and 133MHz SDRAM. But, the same would definitely not be said if you used 333MHz DDR with the 3000MHz Athlon I bet.
Well according to most nerds at least. Doesn't everyone love to debug their software for hourse to find a missing semi-colon? Okay, so maybe the government can keep tabs on you and you are bombarded with tons of spam in your email box, but still?
A sewing machine running windows (Artista 200E Sewing System), whats next? Windows running your kitchen sink?